Could this generation stomach the carnage of world war 2? - Page 9

Iriemon · 05-16-08, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GySgt

Um...no. I am refering to that, apperantly, little known Gulf War that occurred where the entire international community, to include Arab nations, felt that Saddam Hussein's existence, however horrible he was to his people, was worth preservation.

Again.... Hitler was a dictator and Saddam was a dictator. Hitler attacked beyond his borders once, while Hussein attacked beyond his borders twice and funded suicide bombers. Europeans, to include Germans, were spared any future dictator issues from Hitler. Middle Easterners, to include Iraqis, were deemed unworthy of such attention. Why? The answer to this is why we were wrong in '91 and why we were not wrong in '03.

No, that is why we were right in '91 and wrong in '03.

Iriemon · 05-16-08, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heracy

franco-british appeasement?

Uh, OK, do you guys have different history books over there?

I was under the impression that it was the UK that stood up to the hun . . .

but WTF.

REVISIONIST HISTORY FTW!

We knew Pearl Harbor was coming, and we sat, we watched, we waited and we lulzed.

We had decrypted the Japaneses variant on the enigma code months before hand, and as you spags needed a kick up the arse to join the war ... we forgot to tell you ...

I haven't seen evidence we know Pearl Harbor was coming. But that doesn't change anything, the Japanese still attacked us.

But I agree that blaming the war on Britain and France when they (along with Canada) stood up to Hitler while the US stayed mute is pretty myopic.

It's speculation whether had the French/British stood up in 1938 or even 36 would have made much of a difference in the long run. Both the British and French were unprepared for war in that time frame and busily arming themselves.

Awesome! · 05-16-08, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John1234

That sounds fine so long as we know the very large difference between Leading and Conquering or Bullying.

We will never agree on the definitions of those three. Not You and Me, but people in general etc.

GySgt · 05-16-08, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

No, that is why we were right in '91 and wrong in '03.

And this would define your morality for you. Your sentiments reflect on the old order of business and supports the dictator for stability. The very same dictator that is accused of crimes against Islam by other Muslims (even religious nut cases.) This is the same behavior that saw us turn our backs on hundreds of millions of Muslims as long as the oil flowed. The same type behavior that saw us degrade our values in exchange of false peace and temporary stability. Of course, you are also of the same order who enjoys bashing America upon the rocks for supporting the dictators too aren't you?

Your wish, as clearly written above, is to preserve the dictator at all costs while preaching about American value. Gotta love that "Capital on the Hill" fantasy of yours.

Iriemon · 05-16-08, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GySgt

And this would define your morality for you. Your sentiments reflect on the old order of business and supports the dictator for stability. The very same dictator that is accused of crimes against Islam by other Muslims (even religious nut cases.) This is the same behavior that saw us turn our backs on hundreds of millions of Muslims as long as the oil flowed. The same type behavior that saw us degrade our values in exchange of false peace and temporary stability. Of course, you are also of the same order who enjoys bashing America upon the rocks for supporting the dictators too aren't you?

Sounds like the new order.

There are options between supporting a dictator and starting unjustified wars.

Quote:

Your wish, as clearly written above, is to preserve the dictator at all costs while preaching about American value. Gotta love that "Capital on the Hill" fantasy of yours.

C'mon Gysgt, you're better than that kind of lame *** strawman. That is something I'd expect from Aquapub or Navy.

Agent Rapier · 05-16-08, 03:51 PM

Are you kidding?

WW2 had nothing on a guerrilla warfare. Hell, the entire idea of guerrilla warfare is to make the other side so bloody sick at the lengths you go to, you'll pack up and leave before the bastards get really desperate.

WW2 was clean compared to modern wars, if higher in casualities, which is what you meant to ask about.

GySgt · 05-16-08, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Sounds like the new order.

There are options between supporting a dictator and starting unjustified wars.

C'mon Gysgt, you're better than that kind of lame *** strawman. That is something I'd expect from Aquapub or Navy.

Unfortunately, this is a black or white issue. There are no other options to dealing with a brutal dictator other than taking him out or tolerating his presence. The third world is wracked with thugs, warlords, and dictators. Some of "our" doing. And from these wrecked societies in these failing regions, religious terror is and will be the result. We have an obligation. We either stand for our principles and values or we cling to the past others wish us to be fixed to.

Iriemon · 05-16-08, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GySgt

Unfortunately, this is a black or white issue. There are no other options to dealing with a brutal dictator other than taking him out or tolerating his presence. The third world is wracked with thugs, warlords, and dictators. Some of "our" doing. And from these wrecked societies in these failing regions, religious terror is and will be the result. We have an obligation. We either stand for our principles and values or we cling to the past others wish us to be fixed to.

Our principles do not including blatant lying about excuses to attack other countries, IMO.

GySgt · 05-16-08, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Our principles do not including blatant lying about excuses to attack other countries, IMO.

You are right. Our principles behiond the rhetoric used to be about instalkling "our" dictators for stability against the red enemy. But, you are correct. Lying is a principle that should be improved upon. Is this the entire sum of our principles? Is your "lie" issue an excuse for apathy?

Should our principles and values be to topple dictators and crush empires while installing democracies or is it to topple enemy regimes while installing "our" regimes?

Awesome! · 05-16-08, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent Rapier

Are you kidding?

WW2 had nothing on a guerrilla warfare. Hell, the entire idea of guerrilla warfare is to make the other side so bloody sick at the lengths you go to, you'll pack up and leave before the bastards get really desperate.

WW2 was clean compared to modern wars, if higher in casualities, which is what you meant to ask about.

No, I meant carnage as well as casualties. Making the other side suffer is the goal of every opponent whether conventional or unconventional.